Committee Meeting 20101128
The meeting took place at 21:00 UTC in the IRC channel #board-meeting on the CAcert IRC network.
Minutes author prepares the minutes from the last meeting
Minutes author prepares the action items. All action owners to update.
Minutes author puts motion m20101122.3 to accept the minutes
- Chair opens the Committee Meeting
- Who is making minutes?
Chair asks whether cacert-board-private maillist includes any items that need to be disclosed to Members.
Chair introduces the URL of action items to the meeting, and asks for discussion.
- Confirm addition of agenda items added after 48 hours deadline.
AGM added by Iang
- Financial Report
- Public Officer
- advice to the association membership?
- other aspects...
- Question Time
- Chair closes the Committee Meeting
Present: Ian Grigg, Lambert Hofstra, Mario Lipinski. Absent: Alexander, Nick, Mark.
2110 Lambert takes the Chair and opens the meeting. Motion on last week's minutes is already posted and will be accepted as m20101122.3.
Action Items. Lambert reports that he sent email to Mark, with no response. Iang also.
SQLledger is now set up as software, is accessible, but no books/accounts are created. Lambert says he has the paypal transactions and can send them to Iang.
Iang is requested to do the minutes again, agrees but notes that his time is now much shorter. He notes that good preparation for the meeting makes for easy minutes!
2.1 AGM preparations
2117 Confirmation that nobody has heard from Mark. Iang mentions that we are approaching a deadline. We require 14 days minimum to call it, but we are running into the the Christmas season. We may have to extend to next year.
However this requires permission from the OFT, which is requested by Mark as Public Officer. So we are caught. Iang also announces that it is likely that Mark was planning to hand over the PO role in Jan/Feb 2011 anyway. The PO needs to be in NSW, so Iang cannot do that.
Secondly, we see the same problem with the bank account. We need Mark's help to hand it over. We've always been trapped with one person only having access to the bank accounts. Iang offers to approach the bank, but needs a mandate, as otherwise the bank will perceive a security breach. Lambert moves,
"that we give a mandate to Ian, so that he can try to get access to our account."
Seconded by Mario, and Aye from Mario and Lambert. Iang abstains. Carried & rewritten as m20101129.1.
(Some discussion as to whether Westpac has foreign branches, but is low profile in Europe.) Back to the Public Officer. With some discussion, Lambert moves
"that, we start looking for members that would want to act as PO for CAcert."
Seconded by Iang, Ayes from all, carried as m20101129.2.
Consensus that we need to seek an extension for holding AGM (no motion). Finally, the question of advising the (association) membership arises. Lambert agrees to write it. Summary then is:
- we ask Ian to try and get access to the bank account
- we ask Ian to see if there are new members that want to become PO
- we ask for extension
- We will inform the members regarding our situation. Lambert will create a message for that in a few days
General discussion on sqlledger (the software accounting system). Is it to be used for this year's annual report? Probably not. We need someone with some accounting skills to set up the ledgers/books first. Mario agrees to have a look at setting up the accounts.
On the membership list, Mario is still waiting for an updated paid-up membership list from Mark. Elsewise, have to plod through all the accounts.
3.1 Questions from Members
2202 Chair asks for questions from members.
Q mentions a number of questions on Thawte points. "The motion has been accepted a year ago, and is supported by the policy group. However, it seems no one realized that he/she would loose points. A patch has been created to recalculate points." Much discussion. Bullets:
- coding not yet finished, needs a few more steps
- We will not make the assigned date, the patch won't be ready by then.
- do we need additional approval from policy group to implement? No, policy group has spoken: AP is in place, there is no subsidiary policy and not likely to be one covering Tverify because of the audit concerns over their WoT.
- we as board want to ensure Tverify people are notified. But we are dependent on the software prepared by the team.
- is there a need to revoke the points when new roots are not yet in place?
Various estimates about how long the software assessment process will take were thrown around, from 1 month to 9 months. There is then time. Some discussion as to whether there was a chance or intention to notify Tverify users in that interim. However there is no change to the prior motion on Tverify.
Ulrich made the point that the CCA rollout also impacts heavily on this question, and on Support and Arbitration. He predicts a 50% cleanout of deadwood.